Enhanced Temporal Review

Overview View Extraction

Draft Continue to Step 4

Extraction Complete

Total Entities: 27

Actions: 7

Events: 8

Causal Chains: 3

Allen Relations: 8

Timeline: 15

Timeline Overview

Note: The timeline includes only actions and events with clear temporal markers that could be sequenced chronologically.

Timeline Elements: 15

Actions on Timeline: 7 (of 7 extracted)

Events on Timeline: 8 (of 8 extracted)

Temporal Markers

Initial design phase 1 elements
During mediation 2 elements
Post-mediation 1 elements
Project scoping phase 1 elements
During investigation 2 elements
Report preparation 1 elements
After initial design phase 1 elements
After construction completion 1 elements
During mediation process 1 elements
After Engineer B's retention 1 elements
During test pile driving 1 elements
After completion of testing analysis 1 elements
During report preparation 1 elements

Temporal Consistency Check

Valid

Extracted Actions (7)

Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A designed a dock structure specifying 90 piles with expectation that pile strength would develop over a 30-day setup period.

Temporal Marker: Initial design phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Create structurally adequate dock design

Fulfills Obligations:

Professional design responsibility

Guided By Principles:

Structural safety
Engineering standards

Required Capabilities:

Structural design Pile foundation expertise

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Professional obligation to provide competent engineering design within standard practices, relying on established pile behavior principles

Ethical Tension: Design efficiency vs conservative safety margins, professional judgment vs potential over-engineering

Learning Significance: Foundation of professional responsibility - initial design decisions set the stage for all subsequent problems

Stakes: Public safety, structural integrity, professional reputation, municipal liability

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Specify additional safety factors for pile design
Require pilot pile testing before full construction
Design with alternative foundation system

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Initial_Dock_Design_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Specify additional safety factors for pile design",
    "Require pilot pile testing before full construction",
    "Design with alternative foundation system"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Professional obligation to provide competent engineering design within standard practices, relying on established pile behavior principles",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Higher costs but potentially avoided later issues",
    "Construction delays but verified design assumptions",
    "Different technical risks but possibly more predictable performance"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Foundation of professional responsibility - initial design decisions set the stage for all subsequent problems",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Design efficiency vs conservative safety margins, professional judgment vs potential over-engineering",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public safety, structural integrity, professional reputation, municipal liability",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A designed a dock structure specifying 90 piles with expectation that pile strength would develop over a 30-day setup period.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Time-dependent strength verification"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional design responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Structural safety",
    "Engineering standards"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Design Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Create structurally adequate dock design",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Structural design",
    "Pile foundation expertise"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Initial design phase",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Initial Dock Design Decision"
}

Description: Municipality decided to bring in expert witnesses during mediation to question the adequacy of Engineer A's pile design.

Temporal Marker: During mediation

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Reduce settlement liability

Fulfills Obligations:

Legal representation

Guided By Principles:

Self-interest
Legal strategy

Required Capabilities:

Legal strategy

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Protect municipal interests in litigation by challenging the original design's adequacy to reduce liability

Ethical Tension: Legal strategy vs fair treatment of Engineer A, adversarial positioning vs collaborative problem-solving

Learning Significance: How legal proceedings can shift focus from technical truth to positional advocacy

Stakes: Settlement amount, professional reputations, precedent for future disputes

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Focus mediation on technical solutions rather than blame
Seek collaborative expert review with all parties

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Expert_Witness_Engagement",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Focus mediation on technical solutions rather than blame",
    "Seek collaborative expert review with all parties"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Protect municipal interests in litigation by challenging the original design\u0027s adequacy to reduce liability",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Potentially lower settlement but preserved professional relationships",
    "More objective technical assessment but possible admission of municipal responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "How legal proceedings can shift focus from technical truth to positional advocacy",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Legal strategy vs fair treatment of Engineer A, adversarial positioning vs collaborative problem-solving",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Settlement amount, professional reputations, precedent for future disputes",
  "proeth:description": "Municipality decided to bring in expert witnesses during mediation to question the adequacy of Engineer A\u0027s pile design.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Professional reputation damage"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Legal representation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Self-interest",
    "Legal strategy"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Municipality (Client)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Legal interests vs Professional relationships",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Legal strategy prioritized"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Reduce settlement liability",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Legal strategy"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During mediation",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Expert Witness Engagement"
}

Description: Municipality retained Engineer B to supervise test pile driving and verify pile strength after the 30-day setup period.

Temporal Marker: Post-mediation

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Obtain independent technical verification

Fulfills Obligations:

Due diligence

Guided By Principles:

Technical verification
Risk management

Required Capabilities:

Engineering procurement

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Obtain independent technical verification to support legal position and inform settlement negotiations

Ethical Tension: Seeking objective technical truth vs obtaining favorable expert opinion for legal advantage

Learning Significance: The critical importance of clearly defining expert scope and expectations for independence

Stakes: Technical credibility, fair resolution of dispute, Engineer B's professional independence

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Retain truly independent expert with no outcome preference
Conduct joint expert review with all parties participating

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Independent_Engineer_Retention",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Retain truly independent expert with no outcome preference",
    "Conduct joint expert review with all parties participating"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Obtain independent technical verification to support legal position and inform settlement negotiations",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "More credible but potentially unfavorable findings",
    "Shared costs and potentially more accepted conclusions"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "The critical importance of clearly defining expert scope and expectations for independence",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Seeking objective technical truth vs obtaining favorable expert opinion for legal advantage",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Technical credibility, fair resolution of dispute, Engineer B\u0027s professional independence",
  "proeth:description": "Municipality retained Engineer B to supervise test pile driving and verify pile strength after the 30-day setup period.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential confirmation of design issues"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Due diligence"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Technical verification",
    "Risk management"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Municipality (Client)",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Obtain independent technical verification",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering procurement"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Post-mediation",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Independent Engineer Retention"
}

Description: Engineer B decided to exclude pile driving records from the scope of work for the pile strength assessment.

Temporal Marker: Project scoping phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Limit scope to testing only

Guided By Principles:

Client preferences

Required Capabilities:

Engineering analysis Project scoping

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Focus assessment on current pile capacity while avoiding complicating factors that might undermine desired conclusions

Ethical Tension: Streamlined analysis vs comprehensive investigation, client service vs professional thoroughness

Learning Significance: How scope limitations can compromise technical integrity and lead to incomplete conclusions

Stakes: Accuracy of technical conclusions, professional credibility, fairness of expert opinion

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Include comprehensive review of all relevant construction records
Explicitly acknowledge scope limitations in report

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Scope_Limitation_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Include comprehensive review of all relevant construction records",
    "Explicitly acknowledge scope limitations in report"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Focus assessment on current pile capacity while avoiding complicating factors that might undermine desired conclusions",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "More complete but potentially contradictory evidence",
    "Maintained integrity but potentially weakened client position"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "How scope limitations can compromise technical integrity and lead to incomplete conclusions",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Streamlined analysis vs comprehensive investigation, client service vs professional thoroughness",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Accuracy of technical conclusions, professional credibility, fairness of expert opinion",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B decided to exclude pile driving records from the scope of work for the pile strength assessment.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Incomplete technical picture"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Client preferences"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Independent Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Thoroughness vs Scope constraints",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Client constraints prioritized"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Limit scope to testing only",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering analysis",
    "Project scoping"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Project scoping phase",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Thorough investigation",
    "Complete analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Scope Limitation Decision"
}

Description: Engineer B decided not to communicate with Engineer A's representatives despite their availability to provide information.

Temporal Marker: During investigation

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Maintain independence from original designer

Fulfills Obligations:

Independence

Guided By Principles:

Perceived objectivity

Required Capabilities:

Independent judgment

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Maintain appearance of independence and avoid potential influence from original designer's perspective

Ethical Tension: Expert independence vs thorough investigation, avoiding bias vs gathering complete information

Learning Significance: False independence vs genuine objectivity - how avoiding communication can compromise rather than protect integrity

Stakes: Quality of technical analysis, completeness of investigation, professional relationships

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Conduct formal information gathering from all parties
Document all communications to maintain transparency

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Communication_Avoidance_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Conduct formal information gathering from all parties",
    "Document all communications to maintain transparency"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Maintain appearance of independence and avoid potential influence from original designer\u0027s perspective",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Better informed analysis but potential appearance of bias",
    "Complete record but additional time and complexity"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "False independence vs genuine objectivity - how avoiding communication can compromise rather than protect integrity",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Expert independence vs thorough investigation, avoiding bias vs gathering complete information",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Quality of technical analysis, completeness of investigation, professional relationships",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B decided not to communicate with Engineer A\u0027s representatives despite their availability to provide information.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Missing critical design information"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Independence"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Perceived objectivity"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Independent Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Independence vs Information completeness",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Independence appearance prioritized"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Maintain independence from original designer",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Independent judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During investigation",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Thorough investigation",
    "Information gathering"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Communication Avoidance Decision"
}

Description: Engineer B decided not to inquire with contractors or workers to verify theories about pile performance issues.

Temporal Marker: During investigation

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Rely solely on test data

Guided By Principles:

Test data reliance

Required Capabilities:

Field investigation Interview techniques

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Rely on available documentation and testing rather than potentially unreliable witness accounts that might complicate analysis

Ethical Tension: Empirical data focus vs comprehensive investigation, efficiency vs thoroughness

Learning Significance: The importance of field investigation and human knowledge in technical assessments

Stakes: Accuracy of technical conclusions, understanding of actual construction conditions, credibility of findings

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Interview construction personnel to understand field conditions
Review all available construction documentation systematically

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Field_Investigation_Omission",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Interview construction personnel to understand field conditions",
    "Review all available construction documentation systematically"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Rely on available documentation and testing rather than potentially unreliable witness accounts that might complicate analysis",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Potentially contradictory information but more complete picture",
    "Time-intensive but more thorough technical basis"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "The importance of field investigation and human knowledge in technical assessments",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Empirical data focus vs comprehensive investigation, efficiency vs thoroughness",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Accuracy of technical conclusions, understanding of actual construction conditions, credibility of findings",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B decided not to inquire with contractors or workers to verify theories about pile performance issues.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Incomplete understanding of construction issues"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Test data reliance"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Independent Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Investigation thoroughness vs Scope efficiency",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Efficiency prioritized over thoroughness"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Rely solely on test data",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Field investigation",
    "Interview techniques"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During investigation",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Thorough investigation",
    "Due diligence"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Field Investigation Omission"
}

Description: Engineer B decided to omit critical facts including equipment failures and the fact that piles were driven to refusal from the final report.

Temporal Marker: Report preparation

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Support client position with selective reporting

Guided By Principles:

Client advocacy

Required Capabilities:

Technical reporting Engineering analysis

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Present clear conclusions supporting client position while avoiding information that might undermine the desired narrative

Ethical Tension: Client advocacy vs professional honesty, selective reporting vs complete disclosure

Learning Significance: Core professional ethics violation - the duty to present complete and honest technical information

Stakes: Professional integrity, public trust in engineering expertise, fairness of legal proceedings

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Include all relevant information with appropriate caveats and limitations
Decline to issue report without complete investigation

Narrative Role: climax

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Critical_Information_Omission",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Include all relevant information with appropriate caveats and limitations",
    "Decline to issue report without complete investigation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Present clear conclusions supporting client position while avoiding information that might undermine the desired narrative",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Maintained professional integrity but potentially unfavorable client outcome",
    "Preserved reputation but lost client relationship and fee"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Core professional ethics violation - the duty to present complete and honest technical information",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Client advocacy vs professional honesty, selective reporting vs complete disclosure",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional integrity, public trust in engineering expertise, fairness of legal proceedings",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B decided to omit critical facts including equipment failures and the fact that piles were driven to refusal from the final report.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Misleading technical conclusions"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Client advocacy"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Independent Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Professional integrity vs Client advocacy",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Client interests prioritized over professional integrity"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Support client position with selective reporting",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Technical reporting",
    "Engineering analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Report preparation",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Honest reporting",
    "Complete disclosure",
    "Professional integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Critical Information Omission"
}

Extracted Events (8)

Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: The dock construction was completed based on Engineer A's design with 90 piles.

Temporal Marker: After initial design phase

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Relief and satisfaction for Engineer A; confidence for municipality; routine completion for contractors

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_a: Professional satisfaction from completed project
municipality: New infrastructure asset available for use
contractor: Project payment due upon completion
public: Access to new dock facility

Learning Moment: Shows normal project completion before problems emerge, highlighting that initial success doesn't guarantee long-term adequacy

Ethical Implications: Establishes baseline of professional completion of work; sets stage for examining post-construction professional responsibilities

Discussion Prompts:

What ongoing monitoring responsibilities exist after project completion?
How should engineers prepare for post-construction issues?
What documentation should be maintained for future reference?

Tension: low Pacing: slow_burn

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Event_Dock_Construction_Completion",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What ongoing monitoring responsibilities exist after project completion?",
    "How should engineers prepare for post-construction issues?",
    "What documentation should be maintained for future reference?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Relief and satisfaction for Engineer A; confidence for municipality; routine completion for contractors",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Establishes baseline of professional completion of work; sets stage for examining post-construction professional responsibilities",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows normal project completion before problems emerge, highlighting that initial success doesn\u0027t guarantee long-term adequacy",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "contractor": "Project payment due upon completion",
    "engineer_a": "Professional satisfaction from completed project",
    "municipality": "New infrastructure asset available for use",
    "public": "Access to new dock facility"
  },
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Initial_Dock_Design_Decision",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Structure becomes operational; responsibility shifts from construction to maintenance phase",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Ongoing_Structural_Monitoring"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "The dock construction was completed based on Engineer A\u0027s design with 90 piles.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "routine",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After initial design phase",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Dock Construction Completion"
}

Description: The contractor initiated a lawsuit against both Engineer A and the municipality.

Temporal Marker: After construction completion

Activates Constraints:

Legal_Defense_Required
Documentation_Preservation

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Stress and anxiety for Engineer A; concern and frustration for municipality; determination and financial pressure for contractor

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_a: Professional reputation threatened, legal defense costs, potential liability exposure
municipality: Public funds at risk, project delays, negative publicity
contractor: Legal expenses, uncertain recovery, business relationship damage

Learning Moment: Demonstrates how technical decisions can lead to legal consequences; shows importance of clear specifications and professional liability preparation

Ethical Implications: Reveals intersection of professional practice and legal liability; raises questions about professional insurance and risk management

Discussion Prompts:

How should engineers prepare for potential litigation over their designs?
What professional obligations exist when facing legal challenges?
How do legal proceedings affect ongoing professional relationships?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: escalation

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Event_Contractor_Legal_Action",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should engineers prepare for potential litigation over their designs?",
    "What professional obligations exist when facing legal challenges?",
    "How do legal proceedings affect ongoing professional relationships?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Stress and anxiety for Engineer A; concern and frustration for municipality; determination and financial pressure for contractor",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals intersection of professional practice and legal liability; raises questions about professional insurance and risk management",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates how technical decisions can lead to legal consequences; shows importance of clear specifications and professional liability preparation",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "contractor": "Legal expenses, uncertain recovery, business relationship damage",
    "engineer_a": "Professional reputation threatened, legal defense costs, potential liability exposure",
    "municipality": "Public funds at risk, project delays, negative publicity"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Legal_Defense_Required",
    "Documentation_Preservation"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Project enters litigation phase; professional reputations at risk; formal legal process initiated",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Legal_Defense_Preparation",
    "Professional_Cooperation",
    "Record_Preservation"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "The contractor initiated a lawsuit against both Engineer A and the municipality.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After construction completion",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Contractor Legal Action"
}

Description: All parties reached a $300,000 settlement agreement through mediation proceedings.

Temporal Marker: During mediation process

Activates Constraints:

Settlement_Compliance_Required

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Relief mixed with concern for all parties; financial stress about settlement costs; ongoing worry about technical issues

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_a: Financial liability, professional reputation impact, ongoing technical concerns
municipality: Public funds expended, continued infrastructure concerns, need for technical verification
contractor: Partial financial recovery, relationship damage, project closure

Learning Moment: Shows how legal resolution doesn't necessarily address underlying technical issues; highlights cost of professional disputes

Ethical Implications: Raises questions about whether financial resolution addresses professional responsibility; highlights cost of technical disputes to public

Discussion Prompts:

Does financial settlement resolve the underlying engineering concerns?
What professional lessons should be learned from expensive settlements?
How should the municipality address ongoing technical uncertainties?

Tension: medium Pacing: aftermath

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Event_Settlement_Agreement_Reached",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Does financial settlement resolve the underlying engineering concerns?",
    "What professional lessons should be learned from expensive settlements?",
    "How should the municipality address ongoing technical uncertainties?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Relief mixed with concern for all parties; financial stress about settlement costs; ongoing worry about technical issues",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Raises questions about whether financial resolution addresses professional responsibility; highlights cost of technical disputes to public",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows how legal resolution doesn\u0027t necessarily address underlying technical issues; highlights cost of professional disputes",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "aftermath",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "contractor": "Partial financial recovery, relationship damage, project closure",
    "engineer_a": "Financial liability, professional reputation impact, ongoing technical concerns",
    "municipality": "Public funds expended, continued infrastructure concerns, need for technical verification"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Settlement_Compliance_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Expert_Witness_Engagement",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Legal dispute resolved; financial obligations established; focus shifts to underlying technical issues",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Settlement_Payment",
    "Ongoing_Compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "All parties reached a $300,000 settlement agreement through mediation proceedings.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During mediation process",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Settlement Agreement Reached"
}

Description: Expert witnesses questioned the adequacy of the pile design during mediation proceedings.

Temporal Marker: During mediation

Activates Constraints:

PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
Technical_Verification_Required

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Alarm and professional anxiety for Engineer A; serious concern for municipality; validation for contractor; potential fear for public safety

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_a: Professional competence questioned, potential disciplinary action, reputation damage
municipality: Public safety liability, infrastructure investment threatened, urgent need for verification
public: Potential safety risk from infrastructure they depend on
engineering_profession: Professional standards and peer review processes highlighted

Learning Moment: Demonstrates critical importance of peer review and how expert analysis can reveal serious technical deficiencies

Ethical Implications: Reveals tension between original design confidence and peer review; raises questions about professional competence and public safety responsibility

Discussion Prompts:

How should engineers respond when their work is questioned by peers?
What obligations exist when expert review raises safety concerns?
How should public entities handle conflicting expert opinions on safety?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Event_Expert_Concerns_Raised",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should engineers respond when their work is questioned by peers?",
    "What obligations exist when expert review raises safety concerns?",
    "How should public entities handle conflicting expert opinions on safety?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Alarm and professional anxiety for Engineer A; serious concern for municipality; validation for contractor; potential fear for public safety",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between original design confidence and peer review; raises questions about professional competence and public safety responsibility",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates critical importance of peer review and how expert analysis can reveal serious technical deficiencies",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Professional competence questioned, potential disciplinary action, reputation damage",
    "engineering_profession": "Professional standards and peer review processes highlighted",
    "municipality": "Public safety liability, infrastructure investment threatened, urgent need for verification",
    "public": "Potential safety risk from infrastructure they depend on"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint",
    "Technical_Verification_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Expert_Witness_Engagement",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Technical adequacy officially questioned; public safety concerns raised; independent verification becomes necessary",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Immediate_Technical_Assessment",
    "Public_Safety_Verification",
    "Professional_Response"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Expert witnesses questioned the adequacy of the pile design during mediation proceedings.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During mediation",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Expert Concerns Raised"
}

Description: Test pile driving was conducted under Engineer B's supervision to verify pile strength after a 30-day setup period.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer B's retention

Activates Constraints:

Scientific_Testing_Standards
Data_Collection_Requirements

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Anticipation and anxiety for all parties; hope for definitive answers; professional pressure on Engineer B for accurate assessment

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_b: Professional responsibility for accurate testing and reporting
municipality: Significant investment in testing; depends on results for safety decisions
engineer_a: Professional reputation depends on test outcomes
public: Safety verification process underway

Learning Moment: Shows importance of empirical testing and proper setup periods for accurate structural assessment

Ethical Implications: Establishes importance of scientific methodology and independent verification in engineering practice

Discussion Prompts:

What standards should govern independent testing procedures?
How important is the 30-day setup period for accurate results?
What documentation should be maintained during testing?

Tension: medium Pacing: slow_burn

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Event_Test_Pile_Driving",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What standards should govern independent testing procedures?",
    "How important is the 30-day setup period for accurate results?",
    "What documentation should be maintained during testing?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Anticipation and anxiety for all parties; hope for definitive answers; professional pressure on Engineer B for accurate assessment",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Establishes importance of scientific methodology and independent verification in engineering practice",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows importance of empirical testing and proper setup periods for accurate structural assessment",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Professional reputation depends on test outcomes",
    "engineer_b": "Professional responsibility for accurate testing and reporting",
    "municipality": "Significant investment in testing; depends on results for safety decisions",
    "public": "Safety verification process underway"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Scientific_Testing_Standards",
    "Data_Collection_Requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Independent_Engineer_Retention",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Empirical testing phase initiated; data collection begins; technical verification process underway",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Complete_Data_Recording",
    "Equipment_Monitoring",
    "Comprehensive_Analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Test pile driving was conducted under Engineer B\u0027s supervision to verify pile strength after a 30-day setup period.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer B\u0027s retention",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Test Pile Driving"
}

Description: Equipment failures occurred during the pile testing process, affecting data collection and test reliability.

Temporal Marker: During test pile driving

Activates Constraints:

Equipment_Failure_Documentation
Test_Validity_Assessment

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Frustration and concern for Engineer B; anxiety about test validity for municipality; potential hope for Engineer A if tests are invalidated

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_b: Professional obligation to document failures and assess impact on results
municipality: Investment in testing potentially compromised; unclear results
engineer_a: Potential impact on validity of negative findings
testing_integrity: Scientific validity of results called into question

Learning Moment: Demonstrates importance of documenting all testing conditions, including equipment failures, for scientific integrity

Ethical Implications: Highlights professional duty to maintain scientific integrity even when equipment problems occur; raises questions about selective reporting

Discussion Prompts:

How should equipment failures affect the interpretation of test results?
What professional obligation exists to document equipment problems?
Should testing be repeated when equipment failures occur?

Tension: medium Pacing: escalation

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Event_Equipment_Failures_During_Testing",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should equipment failures affect the interpretation of test results?",
    "What professional obligation exists to document equipment problems?",
    "Should testing be repeated when equipment failures occur?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Frustration and concern for Engineer B; anxiety about test validity for municipality; potential hope for Engineer A if tests are invalidated",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Highlights professional duty to maintain scientific integrity even when equipment problems occur; raises questions about selective reporting",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates importance of documenting all testing conditions, including equipment failures, for scientific integrity",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Potential impact on validity of negative findings",
    "engineer_b": "Professional obligation to document failures and assess impact on results",
    "municipality": "Investment in testing potentially compromised; unclear results",
    "testing_integrity": "Scientific validity of results called into question"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Equipment_Failure_Documentation",
    "Test_Validity_Assessment"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Test reliability compromised; data quality questioned; need for equipment failure documentation",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Document_Equipment_Issues",
    "Assess_Data_Impact",
    "Consider_Test_Validity"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Equipment failures occurred during the pile testing process, affecting data collection and test reliability.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During test pile driving",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Equipment Failures During Testing"
}

Description: Engineer B's testing concluded that 19 piles failed to meet safety requirements based on the available data.

Temporal Marker: After completion of testing analysis

Activates Constraints:

PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
Immediate_Action_Required

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Crisis and alarm for municipality; vindication mixed with concern for contractor; professional devastation for Engineer A; heavy responsibility for Engineer B

Stakeholder Consequences:

municipality: Critical infrastructure safety crisis; potential public liability; urgent remediation costs
engineer_a: Professional competence seriously questioned; potential disciplinary action; career impact
public: Infrastructure they depend on declared unsafe; potential danger
engineer_b: Professional responsibility for accurate assessment and public safety

Learning Moment: Demonstrates ultimate consequence of design inadequacy and importance of thorough independent review

Ethical Implications: Reveals paramount importance of public safety over other considerations; raises questions about professional accountability for design adequacy

Discussion Prompts:

How should critical safety findings be communicated to stakeholders?
What immediate actions are required when infrastructure is deemed unsafe?
How should the completeness of the analysis affect confidence in these findings?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Event_Pile_Safety_Failures_Identified",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should critical safety findings be communicated to stakeholders?",
    "What immediate actions are required when infrastructure is deemed unsafe?",
    "How should the completeness of the analysis affect confidence in these findings?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Crisis and alarm for municipality; vindication mixed with concern for contractor; professional devastation for Engineer A; heavy responsibility for Engineer B",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals paramount importance of public safety over other considerations; raises questions about professional accountability for design adequacy",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates ultimate consequence of design inadequacy and importance of thorough independent review",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Professional competence seriously questioned; potential disciplinary action; career impact",
    "engineer_b": "Professional responsibility for accurate assessment and public safety",
    "municipality": "Critical infrastructure safety crisis; potential public liability; urgent remediation costs",
    "public": "Infrastructure they depend on declared unsafe; potential danger"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint",
    "Immediate_Action_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Field_Investigation_Omission",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Critical safety deficiency confirmed; immediate remediation required; public safety at risk",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Immediate_Safety_Assessment",
    "Structural_Remediation",
    "Public_Protection",
    "Authority_Notification"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s testing concluded that 19 piles failed to meet safety requirements based on the available data.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "critical",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After completion of testing analysis",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "critical",
  "rdfs:label": "Pile Safety Failures Identified"
}

Description: Engineer B's final report excluded critical information including equipment failures, pile driving records, and the fact that piles were driven to refusal.

Temporal Marker: During report preparation

Activates Constraints:

Professional_Integrity_Violation
Data_Completeness_Required

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Shock and betrayal for municipality; potential relief for Engineer A if discovered; professional crisis for Engineer B; confusion and mistrust among stakeholders

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_b: Severe professional ethics violation; potential disciplinary action; career-ending misconduct
municipality: Reliance on incomplete analysis for critical safety decisions; potential liability for acting on flawed report
engineer_a: Potentially exonerated if complete data shows adequate design
public: Safety decisions based on incomplete information; trust in professional integrity damaged
engineering_profession: Professional standards and integrity called into question

Learning Moment: Demonstrates severe consequences of professional dishonesty and selective reporting; shows how omission can be as damaging as false information

Ethical Implications: Reveals fundamental violation of professional integrity and honesty; demonstrates how selective reporting can endanger public safety and professional trust

Discussion Prompts:

What constitutes professional misconduct in engineering reporting?
How should critical information be handled even when it complicates conclusions?
What safeguards should exist to ensure complete and honest professional reporting?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Event_Critical_Data_Exclusion",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What constitutes professional misconduct in engineering reporting?",
    "How should critical information be handled even when it complicates conclusions?",
    "What safeguards should exist to ensure complete and honest professional reporting?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Shock and betrayal for municipality; potential relief for Engineer A if discovered; professional crisis for Engineer B; confusion and mistrust among stakeholders",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals fundamental violation of professional integrity and honesty; demonstrates how selective reporting can endanger public safety and professional trust",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates severe consequences of professional dishonesty and selective reporting; shows how omission can be as damaging as false information",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Potentially exonerated if complete data shows adequate design",
    "engineer_b": "Severe professional ethics violation; potential disciplinary action; career-ending misconduct",
    "engineering_profession": "Professional standards and integrity called into question",
    "municipality": "Reliance on incomplete analysis for critical safety decisions; potential liability for acting on flawed report",
    "public": "Safety decisions based on incomplete information; trust in professional integrity damaged"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Integrity_Violation",
    "Data_Completeness_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#Action_Critical_Information_Omission",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Professional integrity compromised; report validity questioned; ethical violation occurred",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Complete_Information_Disclosure",
    "Professional_Ethics_Review",
    "Report_Correction"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s final report excluded critical information including equipment failures, pile driving records, and the fact that piles were driven to refusal.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "critical",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During report preparation",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "critical",
  "rdfs:label": "Critical Data Exclusion"
}

Causal Chains (3)

NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer A designed a dock structure specifying 90 piles with expectation that pile strength would be adequate, but this led to contractor disputes and subsequent legal action

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Design specification of 90 piles
Pile strength expectations not met in practice
Contractor performance issues during construction

Sufficient Factors:

Combination of design specifications + construction performance gaps + contractual disputes

Counterfactual Test: Without the original design decision, there would be no basis for contractor disputes or legal action

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Initial Dock Design Decision
Engineer A designs dock with 90 piles based on strength expectations
Dock Construction Completion
Construction completed according to Engineer A's specifications
Construction Performance Issues
Actual pile performance during construction differs from design expectations
Contractor Disputes Arise
Contractor experiences difficulties leading to disputes over design adequacy
Contractor Legal Action
Contractor initiates lawsuit against Engineer A and municipality

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#CausalChain_6ed330ac",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A designed a dock structure specifying 90 piles with expectation that pile strength would be adequate, but this led to contractor disputes and subsequent legal action",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A designs dock with 90 piles based on strength expectations",
      "proeth:element": "Initial Dock Design Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Construction completed according to Engineer A\u0027s specifications",
      "proeth:element": "Dock Construction Completion",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Actual pile performance during construction differs from design expectations",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Performance Issues",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Contractor experiences difficulties leading to disputes over design adequacy",
      "proeth:element": "Contractor Disputes Arise",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Contractor initiates lawsuit against Engineer A and municipality",
      "proeth:element": "Contractor Legal Action",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Initial Dock Design Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the original design decision, there would be no basis for contractor disputes or legal action",
  "proeth:effect": "Contractor Legal Action",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Design specification of 90 piles",
    "Pile strength expectations not met in practice",
    "Contractor performance issues during construction"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of design specifications + construction performance gaps + contractual disputes"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer B decided to exclude pile driving records from the scope of work for the pile strength assessment, which directly led to critical information being omitted from the final report

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Engineer B's decision to limit scope
Pile driving records containing relevant performance data
Final report preparation without comprehensive data review

Sufficient Factors:

Scope limitation decision + availability of excluded critical data

Counterfactual Test: If Engineer B had included pile driving records in scope, critical data would have been included in the report

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer B
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Scope Limitation Decision
Engineer B excludes pile driving records from assessment scope
Test Pile Driving
Testing proceeds with limited data collection scope
Equipment Failures During Testing
Equipment failures occur but fall outside defined scope
Pile Safety Failures Identified
Assessment concludes 19 piles failed based on incomplete data
Critical Data Exclusion
Final report omits equipment failures and pile driving records

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#CausalChain_1efb0634",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer B decided to exclude pile driving records from the scope of work for the pile strength assessment, which directly led to critical information being omitted from the final report",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B excludes pile driving records from assessment scope",
      "proeth:element": "Scope Limitation Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Testing proceeds with limited data collection scope",
      "proeth:element": "Test Pile Driving",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Equipment failures occur but fall outside defined scope",
      "proeth:element": "Equipment Failures During Testing",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Assessment concludes 19 piles failed based on incomplete data",
      "proeth:element": "Pile Safety Failures Identified",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Final report omits equipment failures and pile driving records",
      "proeth:element": "Critical Data Exclusion",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Scope Limitation Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If Engineer B had included pile driving records in scope, critical data would have been included in the report",
  "proeth:effect": "Critical Data Exclusion",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s decision to limit scope",
    "Pile driving records containing relevant performance data",
    "Final report preparation without comprehensive data review"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Scope limitation decision + availability of excluded critical data"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer B decided not to communicate with Engineer A's representatives despite their availability, which prevented access to crucial design insights and led to incomplete assessment of pile safety

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Engineer B's decision to avoid communication
Engineer A's representatives having relevant knowledge
Assessment proceeding without original design insights

Sufficient Factors:

Communication avoidance + availability of design expertise + independent assessment methodology

Counterfactual Test: Communication with Engineer A's team could have provided context that might have changed the safety assessment conclusions

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer B
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Communication Avoidance Decision
Engineer B chooses not to communicate with Engineer A's available representatives
Independent Engineer Retention
Engineer B proceeds with assessment in isolation from original design team
Test Pile Driving
Testing conducted without benefit of original design insights or context
Equipment Failures During Testing
Equipment issues arise with no input from experienced design team
Pile Safety Failures Identified
Assessment concludes pile failures without full understanding of design intent

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/71#CausalChain_61117a43",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer B decided not to communicate with Engineer A\u0027s representatives despite their availability, which prevented access to crucial design insights and led to incomplete assessment of pile safety",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B chooses not to communicate with Engineer A\u0027s available representatives",
      "proeth:element": "Communication Avoidance Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B proceeds with assessment in isolation from original design team",
      "proeth:element": "Independent Engineer Retention",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Testing conducted without benefit of original design insights or context",
      "proeth:element": "Test Pile Driving",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Equipment issues arise with no input from experienced design team",
      "proeth:element": "Equipment Failures During Testing",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Assessment concludes pile failures without full understanding of design intent",
      "proeth:element": "Pile Safety Failures Identified",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Communication Avoidance Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Communication with Engineer A\u0027s team could have provided context that might have changed the safety assessment conclusions",
  "proeth:effect": "Pile Safety Failures Identified",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s decision to avoid communication",
    "Engineer A\u0027s representatives having relevant knowledge",
    "Assessment proceeding without original design insights"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Communication avoidance + availability of design expertise + independent assessment methodology"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Allen Temporal Relations (8)

Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties

From Entity	Allen Relation	To Entity	OWL-Time Property	Evidence
dock design	before Entity1 is before Entity2	construction	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock... Following construction, there was a co...
construction	before Entity1 is before Entity2	contractor lawsuit	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Following construction, there was a contractor's extra claim and Engineer A and the municipality wer...
lawsuit	before Entity1 is before Entity2	mediation settlement	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	The claim was settled by mediation. Engineer A and the municipality shared the cost of the settlemen...
expert witness testimony	during Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2	mediation	`time:intervalDuring` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring	During the mediation, the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support their case
initial pile driving	before Entity1 is before Entity2	30-day setup period	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requir...
mediation	before Entity1 is before Entity2	test pile program	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	During the mediation... To test this, the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving ...
30-day setup period	before Entity1 is before Entity2	pile strength testing	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	after a 30 day set, the increase in set up strength with time was confirmed
test pile driving	before Entity1 is before Entity2	Engineer B's report	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	At the conclusion of the program Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of...

About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

Allen's Interval Algebra provides 13 basic temporal relations between intervals. These relations are mapped to OWL-Time standard properties for interoperability with Semantic Web temporal reasoning systems and SPARQL queries.

Each relation includes both a ProEthica custom property and a time:* OWL-Time property for maximum compatibility.

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Extraction Complete

Timeline Overview

Temporal Markers

Temporal Consistency Check

Extracted Actions (7)

Initial Dock Design Decision Engineer A (Design Engineer)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Expert Witness Engagement Municipality (Client)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Independent Engineer Retention Municipality (Client)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Scope Limitation Decision Engineer B (Independent Engineer)

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Communication Avoidance Decision Engineer B (Independent Engineer)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Field Investigation Omission Engineer B (Independent Engineer)

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Critical Information Omission Engineer B (Independent Engineer)

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Extracted Events (8)

Dock Construction Completion

Scenario Metadata

Contractor Legal Action

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Settlement Agreement Reached

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Expert Concerns Raised

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Test Pile Driving

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Equipment Failures During Testing

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Pile Safety Failures Identified

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Critical Data Exclusion

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Causal Chains (3)

Initial Dock Design Decision Contractor Legal Action

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Scope Limitation Decision Critical Data Exclusion

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Communication Avoidance Decision Pile Safety Failures Identified

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Allen Temporal Relations (8)

About Allen Relations & OWL-Time